- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Snodh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 228 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act P. S. Kotwali Nagar district Etah.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Kali Charan on 12-4- 2006 at about 3. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12-4-2006 at about 2. 45 p. m. at Kutchery Road, near the house of ex-M. P. Sri Kailash Yadav, the distance of the police station was about 1 k. m. from the alleged place of occurrence. According to the F. I. R. THE alleged offence has been committed by seven persons in which four persons were named in the F. I. R. and three persons were unknown. It is alleged that the deceased Bhupendra Singh, real brother of the first informant, had contested the election of Block Pramukh in the year 2006 against the co-accused Wazir Singh in which the deceased Bhupendra Singh was declared elected, on the day of the declaration of the election, the co-accused Wazir Singh had extended threat that the deceased would not be permitted to do the work of Block Pramukh even for a period of two months. THE co-accused Wazir Singh is a known criminal. About 10 days prior the alleged accident, he had surrendered in the Court and was sent to Jail, when he was going to the Court he told his companions namely co-accused Awadhesh THEkedar and three other unknown persons to eliminate the Block Pramukh and in the process of elimination co-accused Awadhes THEkadar his son co-accused Ranvir and his nephew co-accused Ashish would be helpful. This conversation was heard by Rakesh who conveyed the same to the first informant. THE first informant was not expecting that the same conversation was in respect of the murder of his brother Bhupendra Singh. On 12-4-2006 the first informant and his brother, deceased Bhupendra Singh and the deceased Prem Pal Singh alias Pappu, Kamal Kishore, Subodh and Rakesh had gone to the residence of Sri Kailash Yadav, ex-M. P. at about 2. 45 p. m. THEy came out from the house of Sri Kailash Yadav, the deceased Prem Singh alias Pappu, deceased Bhupendra Singh, Subodh and Kamal Kishore proceeded towards Kutchery in a vehicle and the first informant was starting his motor cycle then at the exhortation of the co-accused Awadhesh THEkedar co-accused Anurag, co-accused Ashish alias Rinkoo and three other unknown miscreants discharged shots indiscriminately towards the deceased Bhupendra Singh and the deceased Prem Pal alias Pappu who was driving the vehicle. At the shouting of the first informant, all the miscreants fled away from the alleged place of occurrence by three motor cycles which were already parked there in a starting condition, then Rakesh disclosed that all the three unknown miscreants were asked by the co-accused Wazir Singh to eliminate the Block Pramukh. THE deceased Bhupendra Singh, and deceased Prem Pal Singh alias Pappu were taken to the District Hospital Etah by the first informant where they were declared dead by the doctors. It is further alleged that in the said firing one other person had also become injured who had disclosed his name as Pawan, due to this incident a panic was created, the shutters of the shops were downed, the doors of the house were closed and passer-by ran away to save their lives, leaving their shoes and Chappals. THE deceased were murdered in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the co- accused Wazir Singh, ex-Block Pramukh, Sheetalpur. According to the post-mortem examination, the deceased Bhupendra Singh had sustained 12 ante- mortem injuries in which the injury Nos. 1 to 6 were firearm wounds of injury and injury Nos. 7 to 12 were firearm wounds of exit. All the deceased Prem Pal alias Pappu had sustained three gun shot wounds of entry and three gun shot wounds of exit. The injured Pawan had sustained one firearm wound of entry but during investigation the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant Kali Charan on 20-4-2006 by stating that the applicant and other co-accused persons were having motor cycles, they were having some conversations near the furniture shop. The person who had committed the murder of the deceased fled away from three motor cycles including the applicant, which were kept in a start condition. The co-accused Anil Kumar and other were apprehended by the police in a police encounter on 1-5-2006. The statement of Anil Yadav was recorded by the I. O. who made confessional statement. He had also stated that the office of the co-accused Awadhesh Thekedar was near the residence of Sri Kailash Yadav ex M. P. where the deceased Bhupendra occasionally visiting who had given the information about the location of the deceased persons and he had given Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant accused Snodh for purchasing two sims. The statement of the witness Asarfi Lal was also recorded on 1-5-2006 who also stated that the co-accused Anurag and Ashish and three other unknown miscreants have committed the murder of the deceased Bhupendra, deceased Pappu had fled away on the motor cycle of Pappu, Anil and Ajai Pal at that time Dinesh, Kunwar Bahadur and the applicant Snodh was also present there, who were saying that the work had been done. They also fled away from the alleged place of occurrence. The statement of the first informant Kali Charan was recorded by the I. O. in question answer form on 20-4-2006 who also alleged against the co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav and Snodh as the above mentioned witnesses stated. Heard Sri V. C. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. B. Maurya, Sri J. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. And Sri J. S. Sengar. Sri S. K. Pandey and Sri J. S. Audichya learned Counsel for the complainant.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant in his second statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on 20-4-2006. The naming of the applicant is after thought. According to the statement of the first informant no role of causing injury is assigned to the applicant, the only allegation against Snodh is that he was also present near the place of occurrence, after commission of the alleged offence, he also fled away by saying that the work has been done. There is no other evidence against the applicant even there is no evidence of hatching the conspiracy against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspension. It is further contended that in the present case Pawan Kumar also sustained injuries. But it is also surprising that his statement has not been recorded by the I. O. Without recording his statement charge-sheet has been submitted. The name of the injured Pawan Kumar was not deliberately incorporated because he was not going to support the alleged prosecution story. There was no intention or motive of the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he may be released on bail.;